Doobie puffing Obama fighting pot legalization

[okie52]

Obama Continues Plans to Oppose Legalization of Marijuana

Wednesday, 09 Jul 2014 02:22 PM

Closely mirroring its past positions, the Obama administration's 2014 drug policy will focus tightly on curbing heroin use and prescription painkillers abuse while continuing to oppose the legalization of marijuana for medical and recreational use.

Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Drug-Policy-obama-legalization/2014/07/09/id/581671#ixzz370Fqhfp8



Botticelli said the White House's opposition to medicinal and recreational marijuana remains unchanged.

"Because quite honestly it sends the wrong message to our youth," he said.

Just what "wrong" message is that Obama?...that alcohol is cool but pot will screw you up?

[8timechamps]

I am not a pot user (it's been a loooooong time since I did), but I really don't understand why anyone would be against the legalization of marijuana.

I also live in Colorado, where it's now a legalized product, and so far, I've noticed absolutely no difference in anything. No random stoners walking around or the like. I know that the legalization has raised much needed tax dollars, and I think I recently saw something on the news about the crime rate being lower (i'll have to research that though).

[okie52]

I don't get it either. If you are going to have alcohol and tobacco legal I sure don't see why pot isn't as worthy...not to mention the tax revenues that would be generated and clearing out a ton of prisoner expenses...

[badger]

"Because quite honestly it sends the wrong message to our youth," he said.

I hate to be debbie downer, but I have no problem with marijuana and other addictive substances being restricted, and have no problem with addictive substances that produce second-hand effects made illegal, especially in public areas.

If we're going to have national subsidized healthcare (and it's a tax, SCOTUS says, so we do), we have to make efforts to make people choose healthier lifestyles. That means curbs addictive substances, not just heroin and prescription painkillers, but also things like caffeinated soda (I am personally guilty of drinking en masse), nicotine via smokeless tobacco products, smokeless marijuana products.

In the case of things that have second-hand effects --- smoking tobacco and marijuana --- I don't mind these staying illegal in public places, and if the easiest way to do that is make them illegal, tax the hell out of them or raise the age restrictions for use to 26 (the age your parents health insurance stops under Obamacare, heh), so be it.

Sorry in advance I know I'm no fun

[olevetonahill]

Badj Pot aint addictive, Least ways it never was for me. The argument IMHO is If Booze is legal why not Pot? Pot is far less harmful than drinking, If its harmful at all.

This crap about it being a Gateway drug is just that CRAP. Take it out of the drug mix entirely. quit comparing it to Hard Drugs. Kids that hear constantly about the "Evils" of Pot and then try it only to find it its harmless(well cept for making ya hungry) May go on to try others because they have been lied to .

Did yall hear? Obammy got offered a Joint when he was in Colorado LOL

[REDREX]

I am not a pot user (it's been a loooooong time since I did), but I really don't understand why anyone would be against the legalization of marijuana.

I also live in Colorado, where it's now a legalized product, and so far, I've noticed absolutely no difference in anything. No random stoners walking around or the like. I know that the legalization has raised much needed tax dollars, and I think I recently saw something on the news about the crime rate being lower (i'll have to research that though).---I read that Colorado has had double the driving -while-stoned arrests since they made it legal----------I still don't see how a state can make it legal when it is against Fed law

[REDREX]

Badj Pot aint addictive, Least ways it never was for me. The argument IMHO is If Booze is legal why not Pot? Pot is far less harmful than drinking, If its harmful at all.

This crap about it being a Gateway drug is just that CRAP. Take it out of the drug mix entirely. quit comparing it to Hard Drugs. Kids that hear constantly about the "Evils" of Pot and then try it only to find it its harmless(well cept for making ya hungry) May go on to try others because they have been lied to .

Did yall hear? Obammy got offered a Joint when he was in Colorado LOL----He was holding out for a few lines

[BoulderSooner79]

Marijuana is restricted the same way as alcohol in Colorado and I'm sure that will be true in any other state that makes it legal. And smoking it in public completely out as I understand it. I don't think the Fed has any grounds for making it more restricted than what the states choose to do. I don't know why the official line from the POTUS reads the way it does - most likely for political reasons. But in practice, the feds have taken a hands off stance to the experiments going on in CO and WA.

[REDREX]

Marijuana is restricted the same way as alcohol in Colorado and I'm sure that will be true in any other state that makes it legal. And smoking it in public completely out as I understand it. I don't think the Fed has any grounds for making it more restricted than what the states choose to do. I don't know why the official line from the POTUS reads the way it does - most likely for political reasons. But in practice, the feds have taken a hands off stance to the experiments going on in CO and WA.---States can't or should not be able to disregard Fed law

[badger]

Badj Pot aint addictive, Least ways it never was for me

Some studies suggest that marijuana is addictive (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-06-19/pot-scientists-brace-for-marijuana-meltdown-as-laws-ease). I am sure that it effects different people in different ways, but in general, I tend to accept what scientists who study that stuff say.


I read that Colorado has had double the driving -while-stoned arrests since they made it legal
It would be naive to think that usage and abuse would not rise with state legalization. Some people, in fact likely many people, try to stay within laws to avoid getting into legal trouble. If there's no law holding people back, of course they'll be more open to try.


I don't think the Fed has any grounds for making it more restricted than what the states choose to do
Federal law always supersedes state law, if I'm not mistaken. It's why federal courts are overturning gay marriage state laws left and right, and why a federal judge said that Detroit pensions weren't safe in bankruptcy, despite Michigan state law.

[BoulderSooner79]

---States can't or should not be able to disregard Fed law

Lots of gray area there and plenty of states rights cases have gone the states way. This was just a fed policy to make pot a class 1 drug and every expert in the country has said that was a mistake. Including the experts at the time of that declaration. Now, if the fed wants to come in and challenge the issue through the court system, I have no problem with that. If they come in with troops and swat teams and confiscate product and shut down businesses, I have big problems with that.

[BoulderSooner79]

Some studies suggest that marijuana is addictive (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-06-19/pot-scientists-brace-for-marijuana-meltdown-as-laws-ease). I am sure that it effects different people in different ways, but in general, I tend to accept what scientists who study that stuff say.


It would be naive to think that usage and abuse would not rise with state legalization. Some people, in fact likely many people, try to stay within laws to avoid getting into legal trouble. If there's no law holding people back, of course they'll be more open to try.


Federal law always supersedes state law, if I'm not mistaken. It's why federal courts are overturning gay marriage state laws left and right, and why a federal judge said that Detroit pensions weren't safe in bankruptcy, despite Michigan state law.

Colorado is checking for pot DUIs now that it is legal, so of course they will get more arrests. But I have no doubt there will be more users driving too - and the voters had to know that ahead of time.

The gay marriage thing is a constitutional issue under the equal protection clause. Legalizing pot is not a constitutional issue, it's just counter to an arbitrary fed policy. The fed could do away with this conflict with a stroke of the pen by reclassifying pot, They could not do that for gay marriage.

[okie52]

----He was holding out for a few lines

BWahhaahhhahhahha!!!!

[okie52]

---States can't or should not be able to disregard Fed law

(see sanctuary cities)

[okie52]

Colorado is checking for pot DUIs now that it is legal, so of course they will get more arrests. But I have no doubt there will be more users driving too - and the voters had to know that ahead of time.

The gay marriage thing is a constitutional issue under the equal protection clause. Legalizing pot is not a constitutional issue, it's just counter to an arbitrary fed policy. The fed could do away with this conflict with a stroke of the pen by reclassifying pot, They could not do that for gay marriage.

The SC has put the gay marriage back in the states hands. There is no federal mandate on gay marriage but Obama was crawfishing on that issue well before the 2012 election after he clearly stated in 2008 that marriage was between a "man and a woman". He "evolved"... but as an admitted former pot smoker he doesn't want to send the kids the wrong "image" by supporting legalizing pot while he'll chug down a beer at a bar or have a "beer summit" at the White House.

I guess I'm just not picking up on what message Trayvon's wannabe father is trying to convey.

[BoulderSooner79]

All the recent district court rulings that are over turning state laws against gay marriage are based on the equal protection clause. And the judges are referencing the SCOTUS ruling on the DOMA as precedent. I don't see how that gives the decision back to the states, but I'm no legal expect.

But I'll still claim that is irrelevant to legalized pot, which is not a constitutional issue. I do think it's weird that the administration says they oppose it, yet are not trying to get clarification in the courts. I can only conclude politics is involved. If they came down hard on CO (a swing state), there would be a huge backlash from state's rights advocates and rightfully so.

[TAFBSooner]

I am not a pot user (it's been a loooooong time since I did), but I really don't understand why anyone would be against the legalization of marijuana.


I work for the federal government. That's a really good reason to say that I'm against the legalization of marijuana.

After all, the war on pot has brought us militarization of the nation's police forces, mass incarceration of people for pot possession, and has kept millions of people from the early Boomers on down from trying that first joint. It's good for government to be making decisions about people's private business - amirite, conservatives? And most of all, because Prohibition 1.0 worked so darn well the first time around. Right, Godfather?

[8timechamps]

I hate to be debbie downer, but I have no problem with marijuana and other addictive substances being restricted, and have no problem with addictive substances that produce second-hand effects made illegal, especially in public areas.

If we're going to have national subsidized healthcare (and it's a tax, SCOTUS says, so we do), we have to make efforts to make people choose healthier lifestyles. That means curbs addictive substances, not just heroin and prescription painkillers, but also things like caffeinated soda (I am personally guilty of drinking en masse), nicotine via smokeless tobacco products, smokeless marijuana products.

In the case of things that have second-hand effects --- smoking tobacco and marijuana --- I don't mind these staying illegal in public places, and if the easiest way to do that is make them illegal, tax the hell out of them or raise the age restrictions for use to 26 (the age your parents health insurance stops under Obamacare, heh), so be it.

Sorry in advance I know I'm no fun

First, marijuana use in Colorado and Washington is banned in public areas. As it should be. However, alcohol is not banned in all public spaces, and I've been around plenty of drunk folks that have a direct affect on the people around them. Should alcohol be banned in all public places?

I'm not saying you are this way, but I think a lot of people are afraid of marijuana and making it legal. Not because of any real reason, just because they've grown up thinking it was terrible.

[8timechamps]

---I read that Colorado has had double the driving -while-stoned arrests since they made it legal----------I still don't see how a state can make it legal when it is against Fed law

Can you show me where you read that? It's false.

Here's a recent article from the Huffington Post that gives you a better (realistic picture): LINK (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/07/03/colorad-marijuana-crime-declines_n_5554453.html)

As for states doing things on their own, there are a lot of things that states act independently on, this is just one of them.

[8timechamps]

I work for the federal government. That's a really good reason to say that I'm against the legalization of marijuana.

After all, the war on pot has brought us militarization of the nation's police forces, mass incarceration of people for pot possession, and has kept millions of people from the early Boomers on down from trying that first joint. It's good for government to be making decisions about people's private business - amirite, conservatives? And most of all, because Prohibition 1.0 worked so darn well the first time around. Right, Godfather?

Exactly. If more people would really take the time to look beyond the headlines, and truly understand why Marijuana was considered a class 1 drug to begin with, those same folks would probably get a much better understanding.

[BoulderSooner79]

First, marijuana use in Colorado and Washington is banned in public areas. As it should be. However, alcohol is not banned in all public spaces, and I've been around plenty of drunk folks that have a direct affect on the people around them. Should alcohol be banned in all public places?

I'm not saying you are this way, but I think a lot of people are afraid of marijuana and making it legal. Not because of any real reason, just because they've grown up thinking it was terrible.

I think you're right, there has been a lot of propaganda against pot that is not strongly backed by data. I'm not a big fan of the legalization, but I certainly back CO and WA right to do so. I do wish the feds would reclassify pot and put it under the controls as alcohol. If we get a republican POTUS, I wouldn't be surprised to see the feds come in with hob nailed boots at that time.

[Wishboned]

I am not a pot user (it's been a loooooong time since I did), but I really don't understand why anyone would be against the legalization of marijuana.

I also live in Colorado, where it's now a legalized product, and so far, I've noticed absolutely no difference in anything. No random stoners walking around or the like. I know that the legalization has raised much needed tax dollars, and I think I recently saw something on the news about the crime rate being lower (i'll have to research that though).

Denver police say burglaries and robberies are down 4-5% in the first four months of the year.

http://www.livetradingnews.com/crime-is-down-in-colorado-in-the-6-months-since-marijuana-legalized-58312.htm#.U73cgZRdWtI

Tax revenue has been reported to be about $11 million for the first four months of the year.


There are currently two petition initiatives in Oklahoma for legalization. One if for medical use, and one if for full legalization. Last I heard the medical petition had more than half the signatures needed to get it put on the ballot for the November election. They have until the middle of August to get the 160,000 signatures needed. I haven't heard anything about the full legalization drive.

[olevetonahill]

Some studies suggest that marijuana is addictive (http://www.businessweek.com/news/2014-06-19/pot-scientists-brace-for-marijuana-meltdown-as-laws-ease). I am sure that it effects different people in different ways, but in general, I tend to accept what scientists who study that stuff say.


It would be naive to think that usage and abuse would not rise with state legalization. Some people, in fact likely many people, try to stay within laws to avoid getting into legal trouble. If there's no law holding people back, of course they'll be more open to try.


Federal law always supersedes state law, if I'm not mistaken. It's why federal courts are overturning gay marriage state laws left and right, and why a federal judge said that Detroit pensions weren't safe in bankruptcy, despite Michigan state law.

Badj Pot aint addictive, Least ways it never was for me

Some studies suggest that marijuana is addictive. I am sure that it effects different people in different ways, but in general, I tend to accept what scientists who study that stuff say.

By the same token( heh I made a funny) SOME studies suggest Pot IS NOT addictive! So believe what you will. You did Notice I said "At least for me" .

[rock on sooner]

The SC has put the gay marriage back in the states hands. There is no federal mandate on gay marriage but Obama was crawfishing on that issue well before the 2012 election after he clearly stated in 2008 that marriage was between a "man and a woman". He "evolved"... but as an admitted former pot smoker he doesn't want to send the kids the wrong "image" by supporting legalizing pot while he'll chug down a beer at a bar or have a "beer summit" at the White House.

I guess I'm just not picking up on what message Trayvon's wannabe father is trying to convey.

Welp, Utah is gonna take gay marriage to the Supreme Court.

[rock on sooner]

---States can't or should not be able to disregard Fed law

But, but, the Pubs want to put everything back on the states, so
they can make the Fed smaller and less intrusive.....

[olevetonahill]

But, but, the Pubs want to put everything back on the states, so
they can make the Fed smaller and less intrusive.....

As it should be!

[REDREX]

But, but, the Pubs want to put everything back on the states, so
they can make the Fed smaller and less intrusive.....----Nothing to do with the Reps----Everything to do with Federal power------But yes ----We would be better off if many things were left to the States----I don't care about this issue---I just don't see how the States get by with it

[BoulderSooner79]

----Nothing to do with the Reps----Everything to do with Federal power------But yes ----We would be better off if many things were left to the States----I don't care about this issue---I just don't see how the States get by with it

They can get by with it because the US justice department can choose to not enforce a particular law. But it is a tenuous situation because that policy can change on a whim. I suspect that's why the current administration is taking that tact: they don't want to get cross way with public opinion, but they reserve the right to change their mind. I suspect this will have to get settled in court eventually. I'm surprised some anti-legalization group in CO hasn't sued the government over this already.

[olevetonahill]

----Nothing to do with the Reps----Everything to do with Federal power------But yes ----We would be better off if many things were left to the States----I don't care about this issue---I just don't see how the States get by with it

Simple , My friend. they just make it Legal on a State basis then refuse to enforce Federal Law. The Feds dont want to get caught up in it so they dont crack down.
The folk in Colorado Wash and other places Still be Breaking Federal Law just no one messing with em

[Curly Bill]

Here's what I like: Ask a doper about any subject at all and they'll talk about pot - I'm convinced it's the only thing they're capable of talking about!

Regular person: How'd you like that Germany - Brazil soccer beatdown? Doper: Man, they got some good stuff in Brazil, like really pure man.

Regular person: This sure is some nice weather we're having. Doper: Oh man I know, makes me just wanna light up a fat one.

Regular person: My degree is in engineering Doper: Oh man, you went to college? I bet you smoked a lot of good weed back then huh?

Regular person: If I won the lottery I'd buy a huge house, a fleet of Ferraris, travel to Europe. Doper: Man, If I won the lottery I'd buy so much weed!

[BoulderSooner79]

Here's what I like: Ask a doper about any subject at all and they'll talk about pot - I'm convinced it's the only thing they're capable of talking about!

Regular person: How'd you like that Germany - Brazil soccer beatdown? Doper: Man, they got some good stuff in Brazil, like really pure man.

Regular person: This sure is some nice weather we're having. Doper: Oh man I know, makes me just wanna light up a fat one.

Regular person: My degree is in engineering Doper: Oh man, you went to college? I bet you smoked a lot of good weed back then huh?

Regular person: If I won the lottery I'd buy a huge house, a fleet of Ferraris, travel to Europe. Doper: Man, If I won the lottery I'd buy so much weed!

It appears you drifted from the topic of federal law vs. states legalizing marijuana. Too much weed?

[Soonerjeepman]

Just what "wrong" message is that Obama?...that alcohol is cool but pot will screw you up?

typical obama...
he picks and chooses...
supports gay marriage, abortion, illegal immigration
doesn't support dope...go figure

[TAFBSooner]

Here's what I like: Ask a doper about any subject at all and they'll talk about pot - I'm convinced it's the only thing they're capable of talking about!

Regular person: How'd you like that Germany - Brazil soccer beatdown? Doper: Man, they got some good stuff in Brazil, like really pure man.

Regular person: This sure is some nice weather we're having. Doper: Oh man I know, makes me just wanna light up a fat one.

Regular person: My degree is in engineering Doper: Oh man, you went to college? I bet you smoked a lot of good weed back then huh?

Regular person: If I won the lottery I'd buy a huge house, a fleet of Ferraris, travel to Europe. Doper: Man, If I won the lottery I'd buy so much weed!

Saying things that annoy the majority isn't reason enough to throw someone in jail.

(Fortunately for me, it's not even enough to ban someone from SoonerFans.)

[okie52]

Welp, Utah is gonna take gay marriage to the Supreme Court.

Can they add polygamy at the same time?

[okie52]

All the recent district court rulings that are over turning state laws against gay marriage are based on the equal protection clause. And the judges are referencing the SCOTUS ruling on the DOMA as precedent. I don't see how that gives the decision back to the states, but I'm no legal expect.

But I'll still claim that is irrelevant to legalized pot, which is not a constitutional issue. I do think it's weird that the administration says they oppose it, yet are not trying to get clarification in the courts. I can only conclude politics is involved. If they came down hard on CO (a swing state), there would be a huge backlash from state's rights advocates and rightfully so.

I mentioned it because Obama has actually flipped a few times on gay marriage without any "federal" mandate to do so. I don't get his struggle with pot and it would certainly hurt him less with dems to support than it would be for a pub candidate with the pubs.

[badger]

Simple , My friend. they just make it Legal on a State basis then refuse to enforce Federal Law. The Feds dont want to get caught up in it so they dont crack down.
The folk in Colorado Wash and other places Still be Breaking Federal Law just no one messing with em

Or they could go the drinking age route... states have a right to keep it at 18 if they want, but they only get their full federal road funding if they raise it to 21.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me on restricting/making illegal addictive substances. But, I'm not going to have my opinion swayed by a message board either, even my beloved Sooner message board, so there you go :)

[BoulderSooner79]

I mentioned it because Obama has actually flipped a few times on gay marriage without any "federal" mandate to do so. I don't get his struggle with pot and it would certainly hurt him less with dems to support than it would be for a pub candidate with the pubs.

I guess actions (or inactions in this case) speak louder than words. I do think that for the most part, legalizing pot is a non-partisan issue (is it allowed to still have one of those?). The dem split is probably a bit different than the pub split, but both sides are split. The pragmatist from both sides agree that the cost of enforcement is just not worth it, and they are tipping support to the majority.

[TAFBSooner]

I mentioned it because Obama has actually flipped a few times on gay marriage without any "federal" mandate to do so. I don't get his struggle with pot and it would certainly hurt him less with dems to support than it would be for a pub candidate with the pubs.

His struggle with drug legalization is due to all the pillars of our nation who would be deeply, deeply hurt by such legalization. The stalwart police who get dangerous drug users off the street, the good investors who run the alcohol, tobacco, prescription medication, and private prison industries, and the community-minded folks who care so much about other people who might hurt themselves by making bad decisions. He has to consider all of that versus trying to appease the growing majority of the people who want to make such a bad choice for themselves as ingesting drugs.

Not all the Republicans would be against it. Remember the libertarians, who are inside the Republican 'big tent.' They are in favor of legalizing drugs on the basis that the "big bad government" shouldn't be telling the citizenry what to do with their bodies. Plus there are still some Democrats who buy, I mean, who understand the truth of Reefer Madness .

[okie52]

I guess actions (or inactions in this case) speak louder than words. I do think that for the most part, legalizing pot is a non-partisan issue (is it allowed to still have one of those?). The dem split is probably a bit different than the pub split, but both sides are split. The pragmatist from both sides agree that the cost of enforcement is just not worth it, and they are tipping support to the majority.

Its not just the cost of enforcement....there are plenty of "sin tax" revenues to be made. And I'll never believe alcohol is a less harmful drug than pot.

[okie52]

His struggle with drug legalization is due to all the pillars of our nation who would be deeply, deeply hurt by such legalization. The stalwart police who get dangerous drug users off the street, the good investors who run the alcohol, tobacco, prescription medication, and private prison industries, and the community-minded folks who care so much about other people who might hurt themselves by making bad decisions. He has to consider all of that versus trying to appease the growing majority of the people who want to make such a bad choice for themselves as ingesting drugs.

Not all the Republicans would be against it. Remember the libertarians, who are inside the Republican 'big tent.' They are in favor of legalizing drugs on the basis that the "big bad government" shouldn't be telling the citizenry what to do with their bodies. Plus there are still some Democrats who buy, I mean, who understand the truth of Reefer Madness .

I guess you could say I'm a pub since I usually vote for them in OK and I've long been for legalization. I assume there are many like me but unfortunately not enough in OK to make anything happen soon.

[TAFBSooner]

Or they could go the drinking age route... states have a right to keep it at 18 if they want, but they only get their full federal road funding if they raise it to 21.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me on restricting/making illegal addictive substances. But, I'm not going to have my opinion swayed by a message board either, even my beloved Sooner message board, so there you go :)

FWIW, it's still illegal to possess pot in CO and WA if you're under 21. As it should be.

Badger, the issue is not "restricting/making illegal addictive substances." The issue is, should one such substance, marijuana, be treated the same as other such substances, such as alcohol and tobacco. And remember that as a nation, we have flipped on these issues before. Eighty-five years ago, marijuana was legal and alcohol was unconstitutional.

[badger]

Eighty-five years ago, marijuana was legal and alcohol was unconstitutional.

Pretty amazing huh. As Mayor Quimby once said, "Very well, if that is the way the winds are blowing, let no one say I don't also blow."

It's also fitting when talking about President Obama's tendency to be in favor or against something. What ways are the political winds blowing this election cycle? Is it better to be for or against marijuana? Is it better to be for or against gay marriage?

In any event, till proven otherwise, I have, since childhood, always disliked the smell of someone else smoking something. At least they're restricting the hell out of that stuff now. Used to be worried that sitting in the non-smoking section wasn't a guarantee that you wouldn't get smoke blown your way for an hour

[okie52]

In any event, till proven otherwise, I have, since childhood, always disliked the smell of someone else smoking something.

Okay...no BBQs for you!!!

[olevetonahill]

O
r they could go the drinking age route... states have a right to keep it at 18 if they want, but they only get their full federal road funding if they raise it to 21.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me on restricting/making illegal addictive substances. But, I'm not going to have my opinion swayed by a message board either, even my beloved Sooner message board, so there you go :)

2 dif. Things Hon. Almost Everystate has speedlimits which are at Their discretion.
Pot is Illegal period by Federal law. AND State laws. Its just that Now some states are rescinding THEIR state laws making it Illegal and NOT enforcing any Federal Laws about it.

[olevetonahill]

Pretty amazing huh. As Mayor Quimby once said, "Very well, if that is the way the winds are blowing, let no one say I don't also blow."

It's also fitting when talking about President Obama's tendency to be in favor or against something. What ways are the political winds blowing this election cycle? Is it better to be for or against marijuana? Is it better to be for or against gay marriage?

In any event, till proven otherwise, I have, since childhood, always disliked the smell of someone else smoking something. At least they're restricting the hell out of that stuff now. Used to be worried that sitting in the non-smoking section wasn't a guarantee that you wouldn't get smoke blown your way for an hour

Badj I agree with you on the Smell. Hell until I quit a few years back I never realized just how bad they Stank. The smell of Pot is Nowhere near the smell of Cigs.

[8timechamps]

Or they could go the drinking age route... states have a right to keep it at 18 if they want, but they only get their full federal road funding if they raise it to 21.

I don't expect anyone to agree with me on restricting/making illegal addictive substances. But, I'm not going to have my opinion swayed by a message board either, even my beloved Sooner message board, so there you go :)

I'm not trying to sway your opinion, I'm just trying to understand why you have feel the way you do.

Restriction and making things illegal are worlds apart. I have no issue with the restrictions the state has place on marijuana use, just like alcohol (technically, stricter than alcohol).

Anyway, the subject is marijuana, so I'm trying to understand why you (or anyone with your stance) is against legalization.

Regarding addictive substances, that's a lot of things. Tobacco, Alcohol and Marijuana (which may not even be addictive) is just the tip of the iceberg. What about coffee? Sugar?

[Wishboned]

Regarding addictive substances, that's a lot of things. Tobacco, Alcohol and Marijuana (which may not even be addictive) is just the tip of the iceberg. What about coffee? Sugar?

Or caffeine.

Here's an article where two out of three doctors did a study that showed caffeine was more addictive than marijuana

http://www.procon.org/view.background-resource.php?resourceID=001492

Here's an article published by Scientific American that states marijuana is less addictive than nicotine.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-truth-about-pot/?page=1


For example, in a large-scale survey published in 1994 epidemiologist James Anthony, then at the National Institute on Drug Abuse, and his colleagues asked more than 8,000 people between the ages of 15 and 64 about their use of marijuana and other drugs. The researchers found that of those who had tried marijuana at least once, about 9 percent eventually fit a diagnosis of cannabis dependence. The corresponding figure for alcohol was 15 percent; for cocaine, 17 percent; for heroin, 23 percent; and for nicotine, 32 percent. So although marijuana may be addictive for some, 91 percent of those who try it do not get hooked. Further, marijuana is less addictive than many other legal and illegal drugs.

[TAFBSooner]

Pretty amazing huh. As Mayor Quimby once said, "Very well, if that is the way the winds are blowing, let no one say I don't also blow."

It's also fitting when talking about President Obama's tendency to be in favor or against something. What ways are the political winds blowing this election cycle? Is it better to be for or against marijuana? Is it better to be for or against gay marriage?

In any event, till proven otherwise, I have, since childhood, always disliked the smell of someone else smoking something. At least they're restricting the hell out of that stuff now. Used to be worried that sitting in the non-smoking section wasn't a guarantee that you wouldn't get smoke blown your way for an hour

Oh, I agree with that last part. Fortunately smoking tobacco is illegal or otherwise prohibited in most buildings that are open to the public (there is even one smoke-free casino in the state! We can now pick and choose our vices), and in pretty big stretches of outdoor public space. That makes it so unusual that it's very noticeable when someone is smoking, or has smoke all over their clothes. I don't know how I stood it when living at home with my mother who was a smoker, or in public buildings before it was restricted. Those were both a long time ago. Proper regulation is a good thing. Also, smoking pot is illegal in public, period.

Minus the faux coyness about being snooped on, I am against the War on Drugs. I would not recommend that people use street drugs. Contradictory? Not at all. The War on Drugs has costs much, much higher than the costs of people using drugs. Not the least of those is the loss of freedom, aka the Drugs Exemption to the Constitution.

[jkjsooner]

Badj Pot aint addictive, Least ways it never was for me. The argument IMHO is If Booze is legal why not Pot? Pot is far less harmful than drinking, If its harmful at all.

This crap about it being a Gateway drug is just that CRAP. Take it out of the drug mix entirely. quit comparing it to Hard Drugs. Kids that hear constantly about the "Evils" of Pot and then try it only to find it its harmless(well cept for making ya hungry) May go on to try others because they have been lied to .

Did yall hear? Obammy got offered a Joint when he was in Colorado LOL

Agree with most of what you said but pot certainly can be addictive. I know two different people who are clearly addicted to pot. Both are farily good human beings and successful. Both have tried to stop smoking a time or two in the past and found it difficult. Both are also frequent users who used at early ages too so that plays a role.

No doubt it's much less addictive than alcohol but there are some people who are addicted to it.

[jkjsooner]

They can get by with it because the US justice department can choose to not enforce a particular law. But it is a tenuous situation because that policy can change on a whim. I suspect that's why the current administration is taking that tact: they don't want to get cross way with public opinion, but they reserve the right to change their mind. I suspect this will have to get settled in court eventually. I'm surprised some anti-legalization group in CO hasn't sued the government over this already.

I think SCOTUS has already ruled that the federal government has authority via the commerce clause. And, frankly, it isn't too hard to argue that some of that pot sold in Colorado could make its way to surrounding states.

I do think the states should be able to set their own rules here but I don't think SCOTUS agrees with me.

[8timechamps]

Agree with most of what you said but pot certainly can be addictive. I know two different people who are clearly addicted to pot. Both are farily good human beings and successful. Both have tried to stop smoking a time or two in the past and found it difficult. Both are also frequent users who used at early ages too so that plays a role.

No doubt it's much less addictive than alcohol but there are some people who are addicted to it.

I've read various studies that basically said the affects of marijuana (long term) on the brain are negligible EXCEPT in under-developed brains (under the age of 18 was a general consensus). It seems kids that are chronic users are at substantial risk of stunting brain development. If those studies are to be believed, that would certainly correlate with addition later in life.

I honestly don't know how addictive it is (if at all), but I think there are numerous substances available that are equally addictive (if not more so). Sugar being the biggest/best example I can think of.

[BoulderSooner79]

I've read various studies that basically said the affects of marijuana (long term) on the brain are negligible EXCEPT in under-developed brains (under the age of 18 was a general consensus). It seems kids that are chronic users are at substantial risk of stunting brain development. If those studies are to be believed, that would certainly correlate with addition later in life.

I honestly don't know how addictive it is (if at all), but I think there are numerous substances available that are equally addictive (if not more so). Sugar being the biggest/best example I can think of.

The under 18 stat is interesting. I've read many places that the part of the brain that fully understands causal relationships isn't fully developed until around 20. (Which explains why FR and SO football players do dumbass things when you think they know better). My only pot use was at Putnam City HS and while at OU, and it was just occasional. Never felt any sort of addiction; I definitely feel more addicted to that glass of wine with dinner. But I certainly believe some people do get addicted.

I've also read a lot of recent studies that sugar is very addicting. It's responsible for the epidemic of type II diabetes and that is becoming one of the biggest single health related costs out there.

[TAFBSooner]

Pluses (mostly) and minuses of legalization in Colorado after five months:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/14/how-is-marijuana-legalization-going?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular&utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article

[okie52]

Pluses (mostly) and minuses of legalization in Colorado after five months:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/14/how-is-marijuana-legalization-going?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular&utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article

If OK would legalize it and let the tax revenues and penal/legal cost savings go to education it would be a win/win IMO.

[BoulderSooner79]

If OK would legalize it and let the tax revenues and penal/legal cost savings go to education it would be a win/win IMO.

So, which will happen first: OK legalizing pot or the sun's fusion reactor running out of fuel ?

[okie52]

So, which will happen first: OK legalizing pot or the sun's fusion reactor running out of fuel ?

Nah we won't be that far behind...it only took an extra 26 years or so before we ended prohibition in OK after it was repealed nationally...of course I may not be alive by the time it happens.

Of course, we still have a president that was a user that's against it now...

[BoulderSooner79]

Nah we won't be that far behind...it only took an extra 26 years or so before we ended prohibition in OK after it was repealed nationally...of course I may not be alive by the time it happens.

Of course, we still have a president that was a user that's against it now...

Not unusual - I know many ex-smokers (cigarettes) that are vehemently anti-smoking now. But if the POTUS is *really* against it, FBI agents would have already moved in and arrested the Governor of CO.

[8timechamps]

Pluses (mostly) and minuses of legalization in Colorado after five months:

http://reason.com/archives/2014/07/14/how-is-marijuana-legalization-going?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular&utm_source=huffingtonpost.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=pubexchange_article

Good article, thanks for the link.

There is one thing that seems to be an issue (since the legalization), and that's the edible products. Currently, there is no requirement that forces the manufacturer to list the amount of THC in the product. That has led to a wide range of products with large variations in the amount of THC. That should definitely be addressed. There's also some concern about the packaging of the edibles. The concern stems from the potential of children eating a THC laced cookie or lollipop. I think that is also being addressed currently.

Some things you just can't prepare for until you have some data, and I think that's what's happened with the edible stuff. Hopefully, that will be addressed soon.

[okie52]

Not unusual - I know many ex-smokers (cigarettes) that are vehemently anti-smoking now. But if the POTUS is *really* against it, FBI agents would have already moved in and arrested the Governor of CO.

Except Obama busted a bunch of med pot houses in CA...of course I don't know how closely the med pot outlets were following the law but then I do know that Obama often goes with selective enforcement.

[olevetonahill]

Not unusual - I know many ex-smokers (cigarettes) that are vehemently anti-smoking now. But if the POTUS is *really* against it, FBI agents would have already moved in and arrested the Governor of CO.

Only an ex smoker can appreciate just hoe Bad those things stink. I dont GAS if some one smokes just dont be around me when ya do, Cause personally I'd rather smell Flags farts.

[BoulderSooner79]

Except Obama busted a bunch of med pot houses in CA...of course I don't know how closely the med pot outlets were following the law but then I do know that Obama often goes with selective enforcement.

When you say "Obama", I suspect it is the minions in the DEA you are actually talking about. It is undoubtedly below Obama's radar screen. I live in CA and the medical marijuana business is huge here and pretty out of control with regard to the rules. I'm guessing the little Caesars in the DEA are not very happy with the orders to leave CO and WA alone, so they must come up with something to put on their status reports. I worked for the federal government for a few years (at NSSL in Norman doing tornado research) and these agencies plan for the long term as they see administrations come and go. I'm sure the DEA lifers are hoping for more of a hard-*** for the next POTUS and the increased budget that comes with that.

[okie52]

Obama could have called it off but he didnt...in fact the raids went on for a while. Maybe he is in another evolutionary stage like he was on gay marriage and he'll flip just before the 2014 general elections...you know, as a matter of conscience...unless, of course, he really believes it sends the wrong message to kids unlike a "beer summit" (you know...working things out over a beer is a good thing).

[BoulderSooner79]

Obama could have called it off but he didnt...in fact the raids went on for a while. Maybe he is in another evolutionary stage like he was on gay marriage and he'll flip just before the 2014 general elections...you know, as a matter of conscience...unless, of course, he really believes it sends the wrong message to kids unlike a "beer summit" (you know...working things out over a beer is a good thing).

I don't know what your point is other than you don't like Obama, so I'll acknowledge that now. If it's that politicians do things for political purposes, I think that's obvious. Legalizing pot may have the majority support in 2 states with a few more likely to follow, but I doubt it will have the majority national for a long time if ever. Gay marriage on the other hand, probably will fairly soon. Look for more Pub support on that issue in the future (outside the tea partiers). As far as federal raids on medical pot dispensaries in CA goes, that would be sort of politically dumb from Obama since CA is a huge democratic base. But that's only if it would anger CA voters which may not be the case here. CA law enforcement may well have requested the help as I mentioned before, there was a criminal element creeping in. If the feds come down on CO or WA, then yes, it will have to be approved at the Obama level, but I seriously doubt he was consulted on the CA thing. Much of the government is on auto pilot and administrations only react to the hot issues or their long term agendas.

[okie52]

I don't know what your point is other than you don't like Obama, so I'll acknowledge that now. If it's that politicians do things for political purposes, I think that's obvious. Legalizing pot may have the majority support in 2 states with a few more likely to follow, but I doubt it will have the majority national for a long time if ever. Gay marriage on the other hand, probably will fairly soon. Look for more Pub support on that issue in the future (outside the tea partiers). As far as federal raids on medical pot dispensaries in CA goes, that would be sort of politically dumb from Obama since CA is a huge democratic base. But that's only if it would anger CA voters which may not be the case here. CA law enforcement may well have requested the help as I mentioned before, there was a criminal element creeping in. If the feds come down on CO or WA, then yes, it will have to be approved at the Obama level, but I seriously doubt he was consulted on the CA thing. Much of the government is on auto pilot and administrations only react to the hot issues or their long term agendas.


Amid an increased crackdown on medical marijuana producers across the nation, including a recent high-profile raid on a California training school, President Barack Obama faced questions in a new interview with Rolling Stone about the seeming disconnect between his 2008 campaign rhetoric and his administration's actions since he took office.

"I'm not going to be using Justice Department resources to try to circumvent state laws [on medical marijuana]," Obama promised in 2008, according to an earlier Rolling Stone report. But Attorney General Eric Holder announced in 2010 that federal authorities would continue to prosecute individuals for marijuana possession, despite its legalized status in some states.

The Huffington Post's Lucia Graves reported recently on subsequent enforcement activity:

Since then, the administration has unleashed an interagency cannabis crackdown that goes beyond anything seen under the Bush administration, with more than 100 raids, primarily on California pot dispensaries, many of them operating in full compliance with state laws. Since October 2009, the Justice Department has conducted more than 170 aggressive SWAT-style raids in 9 medical marijuana states, resulting in at least 61 federal indictments, according to data compiled by Americans for Safe Access, an advocacy group.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/25/obama-marijuana-raids-rolling-stone_n_1451744.html

I'm not a fan of Obama but I don't hate the guy...just don't like some of his policies. I think if you see some of my past posts I've been critical of W, Reagan, McCain, Graham, Rubio, et al.

Obama was for gay rights as a state senator in Illinois then reversed himself when he ran for president...then amazingly "evolved" 4 years later to support it again. I'm fine with candidates supporting gay marriage (or not)...its not a big issue to me.

What I hoped from Obama was a little more advancement of legalization. He's made that clear that isn't going to happen under his administration. I wouldn't expect it from a pub candidate even though I support pot's legalization. Its not a big issue to me but I think that the legal cost savings from not prosecuting/incarcerating pot users along with the added tax revenues paid by consumers and businesses would be a win/win. I wish a pub (maybe rand paul supports it, I can't remember) would get behind it.

[BoulderSooner79]

Nothing about that article convinces me it was Obama ordered those raids. In fact, it sounds like a guy backtracking trying to cover for the fact he wasn't aware of what was going on in the justice department under his watch. This statement :

"What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana," Obama said. "I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana -- and the reason is, because it's against federal law."

… is clearly not true now because that same justice department would have gone aggressively after CO unless the administration intervened. So feel free to criticize Obama for ignoring things until they are high enough profile for him to care. But I have to give the justice department the benefit of the doubt too. Just watching the local news here in the SF bay area, there were certainly some medical pot operations that were not following all the state laws.

As far as advancing legal pot nationally goes, I can't imagine any President pursuing that agenda regardless of personal feelings. I could be wrong, but I don't think anywhere near the majority of voters would support this and it would certainly be a high profile issue. I.e. political death. I think the most support one could hope for is what you see now - leaving states alone that vote to legalize it. And even that is tepid because the next guy/gal in the white house may not agree.

[okie52]

Nothing about that article convinces me it was Obama ordered those raids. In fact, it sounds like a guy backtracking trying to cover for the fact he wasn't aware of what was going on in the justice department under his watch. This statement :

"What I specifically said was that we were not going to prioritize prosecutions of persons who are using medical marijuana," Obama said. "I never made a commitment that somehow we were going to give carte blanche to large-scale producers and operators of marijuana -- and the reason is, because it's against federal law."

… is clearly not true now because that same justice department would have gone aggressively after CO unless the administration intervened. So feel free to criticize Obama for ignoring things until they are high enough profile for him to care. But I have to give the justice department the benefit of the doubt too. Just watching the local news here in the SF bay area, there were certainly some medical pot operations that were not following all the state laws.

As far as advancing legal pot nationally goes, I can't imagine any President pursuing that agenda regardless of personal feelings. I could be wrong, but I don't think anywhere near the majority of voters would support this and it would certainly be a high profile issue. I.e. political death. I think the most support one could hope for is what you see now - leaving states alone that vote to legalize it. And even that is tepid because the next guy/gal in the white house may not agree.

Maybe Obama didn't watch the news for a few months back then and didn't get his usual update about what is going on in his administration...

Stating its a states rights issue is probably the smart political approach.